There is a statement that makes feminists of all stripes cringe. Call it false testimony, call it the straw man fallacy, call it begging the question, the point still remains: This is not an accurate representation of feminism. Whether we talk of the first wave, second wave or third wave, whether we talk of Christian egalitarianism, radical feminism or liberal feminism, this pervasive lie never becomes the truth. Sadly, many of those who propagate this lie are Christians: (more…)
Posts tagged ‘feminism’
Feminist: “Women make 76c to every dollar1 a man makes.”
Someone else (typically a man): “Remember that men chooses the better-paying, more dangerous jobs. And women take more leave for family reasons. And … And…”
Dear guy-who-try-to explain: Feminists already know that. (more…)
Purpose of experiment:
Many “Biblical womanhood” women, especially of the Quiverfull variety, claim that “feminists” neglect their children, while they love theirs. By this standard, attention to children is good (I agree) and neglecting them is bad. (I agree.) If their hypothesis holds out, the average child of a feminist mother would remember less personal attention from Mum than the average child of a biblical womanhood supporter. (more…)
(Note: The contents of this post is not something I teach, but which I put up for discussion so I can learn. This is a tentative idea.)
I recently read a book review with this sentence:
The strongest voices speaking into women’s lives in the twenty-first century are Islam and Feminism–systems that reside at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Feminism is, as I understand it, not at the end of any spectrum. It is, per dictionary definition, about giving women the same rights, opportunities, etc. as men.
So on a spectrum, it will be:
Could it be that feminism is, per definition, a moderate view?
A little girl once wrote this in her school book:
Her teacher asked her why she did it. She answered:
1) How long did the Hundred Years War last?
2) In which month do Russians celebrate the October Revolution?
3) The Canary Islands are named after what animal?
4) What was King George VI’s first name?
5) What is the color of the black box in a commercial airplane? (more…)
The story of the Titanic (I mean the real ship, not the movie with Leonardo DiCaprio) has all the elements to be truly gripping: Dreams and drama, sacrifice and selfishness, foolish decisions and panic versus true heroism. I see some people with an agenda simplify it this way:
On the Titanic, 1357 men selflessly stood aside so that 380 of the 546 women and children could be saved first. This happened in a patriarchal society. Since feminism entered the world, men are not willing to sacrifice any more. If we returned to the Christian values of that society and those gender roles, men will be sacrificial again.
I read it that way in South Africa’s JOY magazine/ JUIG a month or three ago. It seems the article writer is taking a page from Doug Phillips’ handbook. Doug started the Christian Boys’ & Men’s Titanic Society, which stand “to the enduring legacy of those men who died that women and children might live.” And John Piper tweeted recently:
When the Titanic sank 20% of the men and 74% of the women survived. That profound virtue was not nurtured by egalitarianism.
The profound tragedy that the Titanic sank in the first place was not nurtured by egalitarianism either. Nor was the shortage of lifeboats.
The Titanic sank because of (more…)
The new issue of JUIG and JOY are on the magazine racks. JOY contains the short letter I send them, with a link to this post. JUIG, the Afrikaans sister, do not contain my letter, or anything of the sort, at all.
JOY contains three letters on the matter:
> A letter from “Minister Kenneth Emmanuel sr.” , complaining about their “underhanded feminist tactics” and how even their article photo next to the “gender hierarchy in the home” article puts the woman in the centre. According to him, he can see JOY want to put women in the centre. He attack JOY management for being all white too, although the article was written by, according to him, a black person. (Huh? Errol Naidoo is not black, neither am I – I wrote the letter Errol responded to.) He then say: “If you do not repent … you will have a lot of blood on your hands on the day of Judgment.”
JOY responds to him by saying they do not have a feminist agenda, and some of the things he quoted in his letter – prior to it being shortened for the magazine – was my words, not those of the JOY article writer.
(I actually agree with the title-loving Minister Kenneth Emmanuel sr. about one thing: To put one gender at the centre, and marginalize another, is something that should be repented before God. It is sin to twist the Bible to suppress others. Speaking of blood on people’s hands, a sense of entitlement whereby some men believe they have the divine right to rule their wives, contributes to domestic violence.)
> Ted and Jessica Farrish wrote an intelligent letter in which they say “Genesis is not clear that men were to lead.” They rightly call patriarchy idolatry, mention that patriarchal teachings have been responsible for the death of at least two children (I seem to recall a warning about blood and hands and judgment day, from another commenter just before the Farrish couple?), and explain the meaning of head/ kephale, and mutual submission.
JOY responds to them by saying JOY appreciates their thoughts, does not advocate for patriarchy, and “we hope that our readers took away the Biblical truths we were explaining in this instance.”
(I am glad that they are against patriarchy. And I plead with JOY/ JUIG: If they are against patriarchy, they should please, please educate themselves on what ideas, promoted in JOY, comes from patriarchy – and stop promoting those. )
> The third is a short letter by me: Head, as in “the man is head of the woman”, does not mean leader. The letter then links to my article.
JOY did not answer me.
The Afrikaans sister magazine do not have anything on the matter, although I sent my letter to them too. How will their Afrikaans readers know that women are not supposed to just accept suppression under the name of male headship?
I know that some Internet friends of mine wrote letters to JOY concerning the matter too. I did not ask them. I only linked them to the JOY article, and told of my frustrations. (Up until now,) their letters appeared neither in the magazine nor on the letter page on their website.
Please, fellow Christians, help us get the message out: God does not want one gender at the centre, and the other marginalized. The very passage that is most often twisted to get hierarchy, starts with “everyone should submit” and ends with “God is no respecter of persons.”